Aspaqlaria

Keeping the heart and mind in focus.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Anavah, Simcha, and Purim

In the haftorah for parashas Zachor, King Sha'ul fails in his duty to kill Amaleiq. He does not destroy all of their livestock, and leaves the battle before killing the Amaleiqite king, Agag. The navi Shemu'el takes Sha'ul to task for this shortcoming. "And Shemu'el said, 'Although you are little in your own sight, aren't you the head of the tribes of Yisra'el? And Hashem anointed you king over Israel.'" (Shemu'el I 15:17) Sha'ul eventually admits his guilt. "And Sha'ul said to Shemu'el, 'I have sinned; for I have violated Hashem's commandment and thy words; because I feared the people and listened to their voice." (v. 24) Sha'ul, rather than acting like a king and teaching the people to follow Hashem's will, allowed himself to be lead by his subjects. What does Shemu'el identify as Sha'ul's failing? Sha'ul didn't realize his own self-worth, and therefore does not live up to his potential and role in life.

In the story of Purim, Esther faces the same dilemma. Mordechai calls upon her to use her position as queen to save the Jewish people. She balks, and Mordechai counter-argues. "For if you are absolutely silent at this time, then will relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish; and who knows -- im la'eis kazos higa'at lemalkhus, perhaps it was just for a moment as this you came to royalty?" (Esther 4:14) Unlike her ancestor, Sha'ul [1], Esther rises to her calling.

What did Esther have that Sha'ul lacked?

To explain that, I would like to introduce one more story. In the progression of events that lead to the downfall of the second Beis haMiqdash, Nero Caesar presented a healthy calf to offer to the Beis haMiqdash as a test of their loyalty, but Bar Qamtza made some kind of blemish in it that invalidated it as an offering. The Rabbis wanted to offer it anyway, since the risk to life outweighs the halakhah. Rabbi Zechariah ben Avqulos objected, saying that people would think that it means that blemished animals may be offered. Then they wanted to kill Bar Qamtza, so that he could not report back to the Romans. Again, Rabbi Zechariah ben Avqulos objected, as he thought it would teach people that the punishment for damaging an offering was death. Nero heard that his offering was refused, was convinced that the Jews were in rebellion, and after checking some portents, decided to attack. The gemara interrupts the story to give us Rabban Gamliel's assessment, "Because of the anvanus of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avqulos our Temple was destroyed, our sanctuary burnt, and we were exiled from the land."

There is a fundamental difference between anvanus and anavah, the laudable trait of modesty. Anavah is an awareness of our true worth and potential. It's modesty that comes from knowing how much more one is capable of accomplishing. Anvanus, on the other hand, is crippling. It's a lack of self-esteem, so that one does not rise to the challenge. Sha'ul was "little in [his] own sight," he shared Rav Zechariah ben Avqulus's anvanus and failed to accomplish the whole mission of his reign. Sha'ul, like many anvanim sought his validation from others, and so Sha'ul bowed to the will of the people. Anvanus does not lead to anavah, in fact, his quest for approval he is lead to ga'avah, bragging.

Rabbi Zechariah ben Avqulos tried to escape his anvanah through another tactic, the game of "Yes, But". If the situation is unsolvable, then one can't be blamed for failing. In this "game", one person proposes solutions "Why don't we...", to which the anvan responds, "Yes, but..." "Why don't we offer the sacrifice even though it's blemished, since risk to life overrides the prohibition?" "Yes, but then people will think it's permissible in all circumstances." "Why don't we kill Bar Qamtza, and save the Jewish People?" "Yes, but then people would think it is permissible in all circumstances." Rabbi Zechariah ben Avqulus is so sure he is incapable of solving the problem, the problem grows to insolvable size.

Rav Zechariah ben Avqulus's actions lead to Tish'ah be'Av. "Mishenichnas Av mema'atim besimchah -- when the month of Av enters, we reduce in joy." Anvanus leads to a diminution of joy.

Purim, on the other hand, arose from Esther's true, healthy, anavah. Esther started down the road of "Yes But", but Mordechai's words shocked her into the realization that "le'eis hazos higa'at lamalkhus", that her royal station demanded action from her at this time. She did not rest on her laurels, but was motivated by knowing how much more she was capable of accomplishing. Anavah culminates in the victory of Purim. "Mishenichnas Adar marbim besimchah -- when the month of Adar enters, we increase in joy."


[1]Her first cousin, Mordechai, is described as a descendent of Kish, which the midrash presumes to be the same Kish as Sha'ul's father. (return)

Comments:
Beautiful thoughts! One quick note, as an error of this nature is fatal to a proper reading:
> im la'eis kazos higa'as lemalkhus <
As you can see, the word should be pronounced "higa'at" no matter one's pronunciation of the tav/thav/tau/thau/what-have-you.
Corrected. Thanks.
Anvasanuso describes a person or entity possessing Anavah,
as we see in the V'Yitten L'Kha recited by many on Motzei Shabbos, Kol Makom Sha'atah Motze G'Vuraso shel HQBH Attah Motzeh Anvasanuso.

The P'Shat should still hold true if you consider that there can be unwarranted Anavah, particularly when leadership is sought and necessary.

With regard to King Shaul. His decision to abate the Tzivuy was motivated by popular pressure. While this does speak volumes of his lack of leadership, is this a product of overzealous modesty?
Anavanus is an odd conjugation. It doesn't say "anvuso" (his anavah), nor does it call him an "anav" or the property of being an anav. Rather, it refers to the property of him being an "anvan". I used that circumlocution as a means of distinguishing terms. In fact, I would suggest that that's what motivated Rabban Gamli'el's unique choice of construction.

The whole point of the essay was to suggest that yes -- this undue modesty was the source of Sha'ul's need to cave to popular demand. If you find it unconvincing, explain why rather than just rephrase the conclusion as a question. It would be more helpful to me.
The Gemara is stressing that the Middah of Anava in R' Zechariah, Anvesanuso, was at fault. This term (Anvesanuso) is used in other places and I referred to its appearance in the Siddur regarding HQBH. After searching in Shas for the term Anvesan, it it used quite often describing a person who lives life with Anavah, in a positive context. Hillel the Elder is described as Anvesan. So the terms Anvesenuso refers to his being an Anvesan, a positive trait in general but deadly in this instance.

To be honest, I see no meqor for there being a trait of "Anvanus." At the same time I see no reason why the very same Anavah can't be both positive and negative depending on when and how its used.

I retract my earlier question, as the more I review Passuk 17, the more I see it the way you described it, that Sh'Muel recognized Sha'ul's view of himself as merely an individual (and thus subject to to introspection and subsequent recognition of his flaws, and thus Katon in his eyes) when he should have viewed himself as the leader.
Post a Comment